NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday told Justice Yashwant Varma, facing removal motion in LS for discovery of sacks of currency notes at his residence premises on March 14 night, that he should not have filed the petition challenging the procedure adopted by the in-house committee after participating in it.As senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, began his arguments asserting it is ‘matters of moment’, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said “It is a matter of moment only for the benefit of lawyers who are involved in this petition. This petition must not have been filed.” Sibal took the bench through several SC rulings that barred discussion in public and in Parliament of alleged misconduct of a judge prior to the debate on removal motion. He said by uploading video of burning currency notes and communications between the then CJI and Delhi HC CJ (related to Justice Varma’s explanations) on the SC website, the petitioner has been vilified, subjected to media trial & pronounced guilty without an inquiry.While arguing against ‘public debate and media trial’ over Justice Varma, who has identified himself as ‘XXX’ in his petition before the SC, Sibal and other MPs have gone public on Allahabad HC’s Justice Shekhar Yadav’s remark and have signed a notice of motion in RS seeking his removal.Constitutional matter politicised, says Sibal While arguing against ‘public debate and media trial’ over Justice Yashwant Varma, who has identified himself as ‘XXX’ in his petition before Supreme court, his counsel Kapil Sibal and other MPs have gone public on Allahabad HC’s Justice Shekhar Yadav’s controversial remark and have signed a notice of motion in Rajya Sabha seeking his removal.Senior advocate Sibal said politics has been introduced into a purely constitutional matter by sending inquiry report by the then CJI to the President and PM with a recommendation to initiate removal motion against the judge. Justice Datta-led bench asked, “President is the appointing authority, and PM is the head of the executive on whose advice the President acts. Sending the report to them does not mean it amounted to influencing Parliament, where the process is independent of the in-house inquiry report.“Sibal said, “How could the in-house inquiry committee conclude that it was a misbehaviour on my part when the cash was found in the outhouse? The committee did not find that the cash belonged to the judge. The judge’s staff who were there were not told that the cash was found. The entire procedure of in-house inquiry was flawed and hence the report should be quashed.”Justice Datta said, “What is the worth of the in-house inquiry report. It is not going to be treated as evidence by the inquiry panel to be set up (by Lok Sabha Speaker) under the Judges Inquiry Act. What are you aggrieved by? If you are aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the in-house committee, why did you participate in its proceedings?”“You are a constitutional authority well versed with the in-house procedure. You could have moved the SC challenging the setting up of the committee or even sought removal of the videos and communications from the SC website. Why did you not do that,” the bench said and asked as to why the judge in his petition has not attached the inquiry committee report.The bench adjourned hearing a writ petition by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who has sought a direction to the Delhi police to register an FIR against Justice Varma for the discovery of unaccounted cash in his official residence premises during a minor fire incident. “We would like to read the report. You file it. We will take up the matter on Wednesday,” said the bench.
